• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

lowered front shock mounts.. axle side

831_xj

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Santa Cruz
Looking for ideas to lower shock mounts. I've heard some people use the lca bolt some weld tabs to the lca mount.. I need it to be far enough out . As of right now my 12" Fox shocks hit the frame at droop and are flexing the shaft.

I'm going with lower lift and want to maintain my uptravel somewhat while maybe switching to some 14" short body bilsteins..

Ideas ..opinions?
 
I kept it simple this last time around, since i didnt have access to shielding gas. DO NOT just put two tabs on the lower control arm mount, it'll rip off. it MUST be tied back into the axle.
s1xzZ0h.jpg
 
Ive been thinking about doing this too. That definitely looks strong enough.
 
000_0552.jpg


Or you could beef up the LCA mount and add the shock tabs there. Pic is obviously during final mockup of the mount, but I've run this shock mount setup for 7+ years with no issues, on a rig that has seen it's share of air time at the dunes and a fair amount of two track bombing.......

IMG_5994-1.jpg
 
similar to what XCMs are, but not quite as large.

they have been on there for 4ish years now. no issues. I was always going to add a skid/secondary tie-in on the bottom of the small tube, but I haven't done it yet.



I run 12" fox's on there now and there is about 1/2" of clearance between the body of the shock and the frame at full droop.
 
Not all shocks are created equal.
For example, a 'fox 12"' can mean a 2.0 remote reservoir, which is 31.1"e 19.1c, OR it could mean a fox 2.5 bypass, which is 33.43e, 21.43c.

All of a sudden that inch and a half becomes important.
 
I dunno, i still dont like the idea of those tied only to the LCA mount, beefed up or not, theres no reason to focus multiple impact forces on 1 bracket...

From a thread in socal: I think you'll have to click the link next to his username to go see the pic.
FYI here is what that mount (Looks identical other that my lower CA mount was 3/16 not stock like yours looks) looks like after I think 2 laps maybe 3 at Bluewater.
 
How much lift are you running? Ideally I'd like to lower it another inch and run the same shocks... saves me some coin. Im at about 5" on 35s now.

roughly 5" of lift. 6" of uptravel.
they are fox 2.0 reservoir.

truth be told the mounts were setup for 12" short body 7100s, but I graduated to better shocks. they are now the pro-series 2.0s with the stud mount so I don't have to adapt to an eye. actual travel number is 11-3/4"

I need to pull the front to do some work anyway. maybe I'll rotate the tabs down a bit and give myself another 1/2"-1" of up. the way they are now other things are getting close to running into each other, I'd have to re-work the trackbar to get any more up I think.

Not all shocks are created equal.
For example, a 'fox 12"' can mean a 2.0 remote reservoir, which is 31.1"e 19.1c, OR it could mean a fox 2.5 bypass, which is 33.43e, 21.43c.

All of a sudden that inch and a half becomes important.


I agree, but I believe what is more important, and something often overlooked, than just lowering your mount to get gobs of uptravel is to maintain the travel relationship between the coil and the shock. it doesn't help you to have 8" of uptravel in your shock if you are coil bind at 6".

It also doesn't help much to have 7" of droop in the shock and have the coil unseat after 5"

you also have to evaluate what you are doing with the rig. a desert runner would probably benefit from a slightly shorter, but larger shock, like a 10" 2.5 over a 12" 2.0, but a crawler is going to want that extra bit of travel more than it needs the extra shock.
 
It also doesn't help much to have 7" of droop in the shock and have the coil unseat after 5"

I hear this a lot from people, and I have to strongly disagree (from a crawl stand point at least). Personally I would rather have the weight of the axle/tire resting on the ground than pulling on the chassis trying to tip me over. Simply because the coil is unseated doesn't mean that the suspension isn't working.
 
I hear this a lot from people, and I have to strongly disagree (from a crawl stand point at least). Personally I would rather have the weight of the axle/tire resting on the ground than pulling on the chassis trying to tip me over. Simply because the coil is unseated doesn't mean that the suspension isn't working.

that actually is the very definition of the suspension NOT working.

the component that suspends the jeep is the coil. once the coil becomes unseated it is no longer doing any work.

unseating the coil is for rookies that can't setup a suspension right.
 
that actually is the very definition of the suspension NOT working.

the component that suspends the jeep is the coil. once the coil becomes unseated it is no longer doing any work.

unseating the coil is for rookies that can't setup a suspension right.


So just to be clear... your saying that you would rather lift a tire than keep it on the ground simply because the coil isn't seated?

You've heard of tender coils right? There is very little difference between a coil unseating and a tender coil simply maintaining coil alignment under full droop.

I wouldn't mind a coil unseating 8+ inches (for an example), so long as it doesn't pop out. Again... there is no such thing as "too much travel" when it comes to this sport, as long as everything works in harmony.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top